2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff passed the final judicial examination in December 2004, and completed a business training institute on January 31, 2007 and acquired a lawyer's license, and registered as a lawyer with the Korean Bar Association on February 2 of the same year.

B. On October 8, 2008, the Plaintiff obtained a certified tax accountant license from the Minister of Strategy and Finance, completed new registration in the tax agent agency register, and received a certificate of tax agent registration (term of validity from October 8, 2008 to October 7, 2013) from the Commissioner of the National Tax Service.

C. On August 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application to renew the registration of tax agent services with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff cannot file a registration of tax agent services pursuant to Articles 6(1) and 20-2 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act, and Article 2(1) of the Addenda (Act No. 7032, Dec. 31, 2003) of the Certified Tax Accountant Act, the Defendant revoked the registration of tax agent services with the Plaintiff ex officio and rejected the application to renew the registration of tax agent services (hereinafter referred to as “the first disposition”).

D. On September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the initial disposition. On March 27, 2014, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment revoking the initial disposition on the ground of procedural defects in the omission of prior notice (hereinafter “prior disposition”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 15, 201 of the same year.

E. On April 16, 2014, the Defendant revoked ex officio the initial disposition, and implemented the prior notice procedure that guides the cause of disposition, legal basis, method of submitting opinions, etc. pursuant to Article 21 of the Administrative Procedures Act on the 18th of the same month, and subsequently revoked the registration of the tax agent agency ex officio against the Plaintiff on May 21, 2014 (hereinafter “Notice of Revocation of Registration”), and rejected the application for renewal of registration of the tax agent agency (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. According to Articles 3, 20(1), and 20-2 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act, a person qualified as a lawyer is naturally qualified as a certified tax accountant and may provide a tax agent service as a lawyer’s practice, even if he/she does not register as a certified tax accountant. The Certified Tax Accountant Act amended on December 31, 2003 prohibits a person qualified as a lawyer from using the name of a certified tax accountant and does not restrict the scope of tax agent services that may only be handled by a person qualified as a lawyer as a legal agent as a legal agent. Therefore, taking into account the general reality of the tax return by computer into account, it is reasonable to allow a person qualified as a lawyer to conduct a tax agent service after obtaining registration of a tax agent service. The notification of revocation of registration

B. Even if it is unlawful to accept the registration of tax agent agent services for a considerable period of time, considering the fact that the Plaintiff faithfully performed the tax agent services for a considerable period of time, and that if the Plaintiff voluntarily revoked the registration of the Plaintiff’s tax agent services and refuses to renew the registration, the revocation of registration and the instant disposition is against the law by compelling the Plaintiff to make a harsh sacrifice compared to the public interest to be achieved, compared with the public interest to achieve the registration.

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Whether the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of registration revocation is legitimate

ex officio, the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of revocation of registration is legitimate.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 12, the defendant revoked the registration of tax agent services ex officio on September 23, 2013 when the term of validity of the plaintiff's registration of his/her business remains two weeks, and the Seoul Administrative Court may, upon the plaintiff's application, recognize the fact that on October 7, 2013, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a decision to suspend the validity of the above disposition of revocation ex officio until the date when the judgment of the preceding case is rendered. The fact that the judgment of the preceding case was rendered on March 27, 2014 is as seen earlier.

According to the above, the registration of the Plaintiff’s tax agent agent, which was already made, remains effective by the suspension of execution despite the Defendant’s ex officio revocation, and the previous case was terminated upon the expiration of the validity period. Therefore, even if the Defendant had notified the cancellation of registration on May 21, 2014 after having received prior notification in accordance with the purport of the judgment of the preceding case, since the registration of the Plaintiff’s tax agent was already extinguished at the time of the termination of registration, it is not an intentional or unnecessary notification. Thus, the Defendant’s notification of cancellation of registration is not likely to affect the Plaintiff’s legal rights and obligations, and thus, cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation. Ultimately, the part seeking

5. The legality of the instant disposition

(a) Details of the Certified Tax Accountant amendment;

Article 3 subparag. 4 of the former Certified Tax Accountant Act (amended by Act No. 7032 of Dec. 31, 2003; hereinafter “former Certified Tax Accountant Act”) provides that a person qualified as a certified tax accountant shall be qualified as a certified tax accountant; Article 6(1) provides that a person qualified as a certified tax accountant shall be registered in the Certified Tax Accountant Register when he/she seeks to commence a tax agent service. In addition, Article 20 of the former Certified Tax Accountant Act provides that a person other than a certified tax accountant registered as a certified tax accountant under Article 3 of the Attorney-at-Law Act may not be permitted to conduct a tax agent service (paragraph (1)), and Article 6 provides that a person qualified as a certified tax accountant may not be permitted to pass the Certified Tax Accountant Act’s qualifying examination if he/she passes the Certified Tax Accountant Act’s amended Certified Tax Accountant Act(hereinafter “Amended by Act No. 7032, Dec. 31, 2003”).

The above amendment of the Certified Tax Accountant Act aims to enhance the role of tax accountants as a specialized tax agent due to the change of tax payment environment, such as the expansion of electronic taxation, while preventing improper tax agent services due to mass emissions by certified tax accountants, attorneys-at-law, and certified public accountants, and allowing only those who passed the qualification examination to use the name of certified tax accountants, thereby enhancing public confidence in the name of certified tax accountants, enabling consumers to distinguish those who passed the qualification examination for certified tax accountants from those who have passed the qualification examination for certified tax accountants and other licensed tax accountants, thereby ensuring a reasonable opportunity for choice of tax services, and clarifying liability for each qualification qualification by having certified tax accountants, attorneys, etc. conduct tax agent services in their own name (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du105, May 24, 2012).

(b) Registers of attorneys-at-law tax agent services.

Article 6, Article 20, and Article 20-2 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act (amended Certified Tax Accountant Act) provide that a certified public accountant may provide a tax agent service instead of allowing the registration of a tax agent and the use of its name, with respect to a certified public accountant instead of allowing a person who passed a certified tax accountant examination unlike the former Certified Tax Accountant Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Certified Tax Accountant Act"), and provides that a lawyer may provide a tax agent service as a profession without providing for registration of a tax agent. However, in light of the above, it is reasonable to deem that a lawyer who did not pass a certified tax accountant examination may not register as a certified tax accountant, as well as a tax agent service registered as a certified public accountant, unless he/she is subject to the provisions of the Addenda to the Certified Tax Accountant Act, even if he/she is qualified as a certified tax accountant.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff is an attorney who did not pass the tax accountant qualification examination and passed the final judicial examination in December 2004, and cannot make a registration of tax agent, as it is not subject to the Addenda to the amended Certified Tax Accountant Act. The renewal of the registration of tax agent agent service applied by the Plaintiff is premised on the possibility of a registration of tax agent service first, and the instant disposition that the Plaintiff is not subject to the registration of tax agent service pursuant to the amended Certified Tax Accountant Act is justifiable, and there is no violation of law as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the registration of tax agent service is specifically determined pursuant to Article 20-2 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act, etc., and there is no room for an administrative agency’s discretion from the beginning. Thus, the Plaintiff’

6. Conclusion

Of the lawsuit in this case, the part seeking the revocation of the registration cancellation notice is dismissed as unlawful, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Justices Kim Byung-soo (Presiding Justice) Kim Jae-young Kim Tae-tae